I posted a few weeks ago on the apparent cross purposes of the United States and Israel, and its likely connection to the raid on Syria.

Consider ArmsControlWonk's new analysis of the latest neocon cul de sac in the Middle

 East in this light, re the efforts by the US to pressure the UN (yet again) to run a 'special inspection' of a site of suspected Syrian nuclear activity, the "Box on the Euphrates:"

A very curious set of stories appeared yesterday about the results of environmental sampling that the IAEA conducted at the AlKibar site.

Diplomats -- which is to say, not the IAEA staff -- told AP's George Jahn, Reuter's Mark Heinrich and DPA's Arthur that the IAEA DG ElBaradei's report for the 27-28 November Board of Governors meeting will indicate that "samples ... contained traces of uranium ... was processed and not in raw form."

.....The presence of processed uranium (it is unclear it is enriched or in the form of metal) has many possible implications. There wasn't supposed to be any reactor fuel on site and the IAEA didn't find any evidence of graphite -- though that isn't particularly exculpatory (see: Mark Hibbs, "Evidence form IAEA graphite probe not critical to Syria reactor case," Nuclear Fuel 33:21, p. 7). Maybe it was cross contamination from the North Koreans. Or maybe Syria has some enrichment efforts.

But, at least today, I think the story hit the papers as part of an effort to press ElBaradei to request a "special inspection" in Syria.

Well, here is the crux of the story:

ElBaradei has been reluctant to ask for a "special inspection" under Syria's INFCIRC/153 safeguards agreement to visit those three sites (see Mark Hibbs, "Key IAEA directors not inclined to press for special Syria probe," Nucleonics Week 49:41, 9 October 2008, p. 7). ElBaradei's has taken an exceptionally narrow view of the basis on which he would ask for a special inspection -- according to Hibbs "sources close to ElBaradei said last week that unless the IAEA found evidence of undeclared nuclear material, it would not be inclined to request a special inspection to pursue the allegations of an undeclared reactor project."

The real reason that ElBaradei is reluctant may have more to do with ongoing Israeli efforts to engage Syria. Hibbs has reported that the effort to pressure Syrua has "run aground on a separate diplomatic effort ... to encourage Syria to isolate Iran (Hibbs, "Diplomatic efforts to engage Syria hindering US-led campaign at IAEA," Nuclear Fuel 33:20, p. 4).

So, that's the rub: Some countries -- read the US -- want ElBaradei to push for a special inspection -- which the Agency has only requested twice in its history. ElBaradei has said that he won't unless there is evidence of undeclared nuclear material. So, delegations are seizing on the uranium finding -- however scant -- to force ElBaradei's hand.

You can see why the DG and the IAEA might be irritated, particularly if the evidence is less clear-cut than the diplomats are suggesting.

Israel, in my opinion, has stared into the neocon abyss, and seen only endless reprises of the Israel-Lebanon War of 2006. In this light, I wonder whether the neocons, who hopefully soon will exit the stage, even notice what a rift has opened between their faction and the nation they claim to value so much.